Judgment

HEGDE, J.-Scope of Article 311(1) of the Constitution comes up for consideration in this appeal by certificate. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has opined that the power of dismissal and removal referred to in Article 311(1) implies that the authorities mentioned in that Article must alone initiate and conduct the disciplinary proceeding culminating in the dismissal or removal of a delinquent officer.

2. The respondent herein was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the basis of certain charges, by the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, on June 24, 1962. After holding the enquiry as prescribed by the Central Provinces and Bihar Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police submitted his report to the Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Pradesh through Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Raipur. On the basis of the enquiry held by him, the Superintendent of Police concluded that the respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him. He recommended his dismissal. After receiving the report of the Superintendent of Police, the Inspector-General sent a copy of the same to the respondent and called upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent submitted his explanation. After considering the same, the Inspector-General of Police dismissed the respondent from service on November 30, 1963. The respondent s appeal to the Government against the order dismissing him was rejected. Thereafter the respondent moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order dismissing him by issuing a writ of certiorari. The dismissal order was challenged on various grounds. The High Court rejected all but one of them. It came to the conclusion that the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, was not competent to initiate or conduct the enquiry held against the respondent as he had been appointed by the Inspector-General of Police. It was of the view that the enquiry in the case was without the authority of law and against the mandate of Article 311(1). It accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order.

3. The, Superintendent of Police, Surguja initiated and conducted the enquiry against the respondent on the basis of Regulations 228 and 229 of the Central Provinces and Bihar Police Regulations. These Regulations are evidently framed on the basis of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, a provision which permitted the State Governments to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to State service. Regulation 228 says :

"In every case of dismissal, reduction in rank, grade or pay, or withholding of increment for a period in excess of one year, a formal proceeding must be recorded, by the District Superintendent in the prescribed form, setting forth-

(a) the charge ;

(b) the evidence on which the charge is based ;

(c) the defence of the accused ;

(d) the statements of his witnesses (if any) ;

(e) the finding of the District Superintendent, with the reasons on which it is based ;

(f) the District Superintendent s final order or recommendation, as the case may be."

4. Regulation 229 prescribes that in cases where the District Superintendent is not empowered to pass a final order he should forward his proposals for the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of an officer of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector to the proper authority through the District Magistrate, except in cases where an officer is not serving in a district.

5. There is no dispute that the Superintendent of Police had complied with the requirements of Regulations 228 and 229. The question for consideration is whether the power conferred on the Superintendent of Police under Regulations 228 and 229 is ultra vires Article 311(1).

6. Article 311(1) provides that no person who is a member of Civil Service of the Union or of an All India Service or Civil Service of a State or h